2019 Supreme(Kar) 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ABHAY S. OKA, MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, JJ.
M/s. Steer Engineering Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
M/s Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC and Others – Respondents
Commercial Appeal No. 5 of 2019
Decided On : 18-10-2019

Headnote:

Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 2 (o) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986 - Section 9 - Indian Patent Act, 1970 - Section 25 - Order of injunction - Manufacture of nutritional beverages - It is stated in the plaint that the appellant's pioneering technology was the use of the process of extrusion in various industries. The process of extrusion is a manufacturing process in which a softened material is typically forced through a shaped metal piece or die to produce a formed product. It is claimed that the appellant has prior experience of gelatinizing starches used in extruder in a controlled manner. In addition, the appellant has a prior experience with simultaneous gelatinization and hydrolysis of starch using an extruder. It is claimed that the appellant's work in the area of technology is confidential. It is alleged that the appellant has taken measures to ensure that the information is available only on a need to know basis under strict confidentiality obligations - Case of the appellant is that the appellant's test results and its databases are protected under Section 2 (o) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (for short, 'the said Act of 1957'). It is alleged that the appellant has expended its independent skill, labour, time and capital in generating its proprietary test databases and test results which are its original works and therefore, they are entitled to protection under the said Act of 1957. It is alleged that from the year 2013 to 2015, the appellant was consulted by the 4th respondent who had unsuccessfully been trying to use the process of extrusion for manufacture of its nutritional beverage – Held, we may note here that no reliance can be placed on document No.4. Secondly, the appellant has not come out with clear case as to when the alleged confidential information consisting of proprietary test databases and test results was generated. It was necessary for the appellant to prove the same so as to prove that it was an information which was confidential and it was generated before it was parted with under MSA executed with the fourth respondent. The appellant was required to clearly identify the information relied upon by it and establish that, prima facie, the said information is of a confidential nature. On perusal of the case made out in the plaint, for the reasons recorded above, it is very difficult for this Court to accept that such a prima facie case is made out by the appellant. If such a prima facie case is not made out, the fact that the 1st to 3rd respondents did not disclose as to how they obtained information which is a part of the impugned patent application has no relevance at all.

31. As stated earlier, the relief claimed by the plaintiff-appellant is not only in respect of the infringement of its Copyright but also about confidential information disclosed in the impugned patent application. Injunction is claimed against the 1st to 3rd respondents from infringing the appellant's rights in respect of confidential information and its intellectual property rights in any manner including by asserting and enforcing any rights in the impugned international patent application. It is in the context of the relief concerning confidential information, the delay may be relevant. As noted by the learned trial Judge, the impugned international patent application which was filed on 21st April, 2016 was published on 27th October, 2016 and therefore, the alleged confidential information disclosed in the impugned patent application was in public domain with effect from 27th October 2016. When the appellant claims equitable relief which is of a discretionary in nature of grant of temporary injunction, the fact that the suit is belatedly filed in July, 2019 certainly becomes relevant. The argument that the appellant could not have secured the information online about the impugned international patent application is not sufficient to discard the arguments on the ground of delay and latches.

32. The scope of interference at the hands of Appellate Court against an order refusing to grant discretionary and equitable relief of temporary injunction is limited, as distinguished from an appeal against a final judgment in the suit. It is settled law that unless the discretion exercised by the trial Court is shown to have been exercised in a perverse manner or unless the order is shown to have been illegal, the appellate Court will be slow to interfere with such a discretionary order. We concur with the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that a prima facie case was not made out by the appellant for grant of interim injunction - Appeal is dismissed